Connect with us

News

Virginia Democrats Want to Force Subsidized Housing Down Virginia Suburbanites’ Throats

Published

on

Virginia Democrats want to undermine local zoning by establishing high-density housing in every neighborhood statewide. Public housing will also be included in this high-density scheme.

And here’s the catch—residents will have to accept these arrangements whether they like it or not.

The Daily Caller reported that Virginia House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah introduced this bill, which would quickly transform suburban housing and pave the way for social disruption by allowing duplexes and similar high-density housing units be built in otherwise quiet suburban neighborhoods.

Trending: Los Angeles Enacts Full Coronavirus Lockdown for Three Weeks

Supporters of “upzoning” say these reforms are necessary because suburbs are hubs “of segregation and elitism.” Additionally, they argue that suburbs are bad for the environment.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This proposal will likely meet fierce opposition from people who have created quiet neighborhoods according to their resident’s preferences.

Taking advantage of Democrat’s recent gains in the Virginia legislature, Ibraheem Samirah introduced the upzoning bill along with five others on December 19, 2019.

“Today I introduced six new bills dealing with affordable housing supply and exclusionary zoning practices,” Samirah posted on Facebook. “The most impactful bill, HB152, would legalize two-unit housing types on any lot zoned for single-family use only.”

“Because middle housing is what’s most affordable for low-income people and people of color, banning that housing in well-off neighborhoods chalks up to modern-day redlining, locking folks out of areas with better access to schools, jobs, transit, and other services and amenities,” he continued.

“Single-family zoning is also the least efficient way to organize communities, leading to a much larger carbon footprint. … I will certainly get pushback for this. Some will call it ‘state overreach.’ Some will express anxiety about neighborhood change. Some may even say that the supply issue doesn’t exist. But the research is clear: zoning is a barrier to more housing and integrated communities,” Samirah wrote.

He tweeted last Sunday that that would include public housing. “Important Q about new social/public housing programs: where are we going to put the units? Under current zoning, new low-income housing is relegated to underinvested neighborhoods, concentrating poverty more. Ending exclusionary zoning has to be part of broader housing reform,” he stated.

The chairman of the Fairfax County Republican Committee, Tim Hannigan, argues that urban Democrats are waging war against the suburbs.

“This could completely change the character of suburban residential life, because of the urbanization that would develop,” he told The Daily Caller. “So much of the American dream is built upon this idea of finding a nice quiet place to raise your family, and that is under assault.”

“This is a power-grab to take away the ability of local communities to establish their own zoning practices … literally trying to change the character of our communities,” he added.

Hannigan contended that suburbs cannot handle increased traffic and “inevitably it will just push people to places where they feel they’ll get away from that, they may move to West Virginia to get their little plot of land.”

The PC Left never rests in its mission to uproot every functioning part of society.

By imposing high-density housing via state fiat, radicals in Virginia want to trample over the local rights of citizens and instead use top-down policies to mover their social engineering forward.

Culture

Starbucks Barista FIRED After Refusing to Wear “Pride” T-Shirt for Religious Reasons, According to Lawsuit

She is a Christian and was apparently told by her manager that she didn’t have to wear it.

Published

on

A former Starbucks barista is filing an unlawful discrimination lawsuit against the coffee giant, claiming they fired her for refusing to wear a “Pride” t-shirt that violated her Christian religious convictions.

Betsy Fresse started working as a barista in December 2015. After transferring to a Glen Ridge, New Jersey, store in early 2019, managers apparently “assured” her that her Christian faith wouldn’t be an issue.

Then in June 2019, she noticed a box of Pride shirts on a desk and asked if they’d make her wear one. Her store manager said she wouldn’t have to, but two months later she found herself out of a job after being terminated by a district manager.

A notice of separation claims that Fresse was fired for violating Starbucks’ “core values.” It specifically mentions an incident where she said her colleagues “need Jesus” when given the “Pride” shirt.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Starbucks maintains that “no part of our dress code requires partners to wear any approved items that they have not personally selected” and that Fresse’s claims are “without merit,” in a comment to the New York Post.

So Starbucks denies that she was fired for not wearing the shirt, yet their notice of separation appears to claim that they fired her for something she said about Jesus. Not a good look either way.

Fresse is seeking backpay, punitive damages, money to cover the cost of an attorney, and a permanent injunction that prevents Starbucks from “failing to accommodate […] sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Starbucks has long been a major player in the world of Woke Capital. Back in February Big League Politics reported on how the British branch of Starbucks was raising money for a pro-transgender lobbying group:

The U.K. branch of Starbucks is raising money to push for the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children.

Nathanael Blake at The Federalist reported that the multinational titan is selling special mermaid-shaped cookies to help the pro-transgender lobbying group Mermaids. Curiously, the group’s founder took her underage son to Thailand to undergo a castration procedure.

Blake correctly observed “That Starbucks is supporting this group illustrates how thoroughly radicals have conquered both the LGBT movement and corporate culture.”

He also called attention to how “In a few years the fight has shifted from government recognition of same-sex relationships as legal marriages to mastectomies, sterilization, and castration for children.”

Here’s hoping that Betsy Fresse is successful in her lawsuit.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending